I note here a new book in the domain of moral philosophy, with some obvious implications for jurisprudence, IGNORANCE AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY by Michael J. Zimmerman.
Zimmerman maintains that ignorance of the "I didn't know the gun was loaded" sort, is a proper defense to a charge of wrongdoing.
Or, in his words, "if one committed some act or omission that was wrong while ignorant of the fact that it was wrong, one is to blame for it, and thereby to blame for any of its consequences, only if one is to blame for one's ignorance."
Doesn't sound all that novel, put that way. Few of us would blame a pregnant woman taking a morning sickness drug for the disability of her baby. We might blame a research scientist who was tasked with testing that drug before it could reach market. But we would blame him precisely because he is the one who is supposed to be aware of his ignorance on such matters when he IS ignorant.
Or, as lawyers say, guilt requires both a wrong act and a wrong state of mind. [I'll spare you the Latin.]
Zimmerman seems to have carried through this common insight with rare rigor and to have reached some controversial conclusions.
Comments
Post a Comment